Madras High Court
Saradha vs The Managing Director on 7 January, 2021
1 CMA No.140 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.140 of 2017
Saradha ....Appellant
Vs
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Thenimalai,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Tiruvannamalai District. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 made
in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.66 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Subadra
For Respondents : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CMA No.140 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
2.The appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation, being not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 01.02.2013, at about 8 a.m.,
when the appellant herein tried to board the transport Corporation bus
bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 1540 at Tirukoilur Bus Stop, she fell
down from the bus. The rear wheel of the bus ran over her and she was
admitted in Government Hospital. In the accident, the claimant has
sustained fractured injury on both her legs. A claim petition was filed
seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was later amended to
Rs.10,00,000/.
4. The claim petition was contested by the trial court on the ground
that the accident happened only due to carelessness and negligence of the
claimant and not due to the fault of the bus driver. To secure a seat, The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
claimant tried to board the running bus, lost her balance and fell down. The
driver of the bus who diligently drove the bus and turned cannot be
attributed with any negligence.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant and the Doctor, who gave
disability certificate were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The driver of the
bus and the Conductor were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2. 7 Exhibits
were marked on behalf of the claimant.
6. Considering the opinion given by the Doctor, P.W.2 and the nature
of the injury, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 40% and awarded
Rs.80,000/-. Besides that, for loss of income during the treatment period,
pain and suffering, Transportation and nourishment charges, compensation
of Rs.66,000/- was awarded and a total sum of Rs.1,46,000/- was ordered to
be paid by the Transport Corporation with 7.5% interest.
7. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the injury sustained
by the claimant is permanent in nature, which has deprived her earning
capacity and therefore, the multiplier method has to be applied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the
accident victim is an agricultural coolie. Due to the fractured injury on both
her legs, she has lost her earning capacity and hence, following the principle
laid down in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, multiplier has to be applied.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the transport corporation would
submit that the nature of injury caused to the claimant is not a scheduled
injury or permanent total disability. The injury is avulsion of both legs with
exposure muscles and tendon. The Doctor highly assessed 55% disability
whereas the Tribunal has restricted to 40% and rightly awarded Rs.80,000/-
for the said disability and under other heads, additional sum of Rs.66,000/-
has been awarded.
10.The wound Certificate is marked as Ex.P6. The Doctor, who has
clinically examined the victim has certified that the claimant has sustained
injury on right ankle and left ankle with exposure of skin and muscles. She
is not able to walk and her movement has been restricted. The said injury
does not indicate that due to the injury, the earning capacity of the claimant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
will be curtailed. The claimant who was examined as P.W.1 was brought to
the Court with the help of assistance and that has been recorded by the
learned Judge in the deposition itself. This indicates that the claimant was
not in a position to walk on her own at the time of deposition. The said
illness of the witness has not been further explained by the witness or
through any other medical records to show that she is not capable of
walking due to the accident.
11.The Tribunal which has seen the demeanor of the witness has
come to a conclusion that the disability is 40%. In the circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the injury sustained by the claimant will not attract
the multiplier principle.
12.However, taking note of the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation for the loss of amenity and attender charges, which the
claimant would have suffered and incurred due to the injury, an additional
sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded for loss of amenity and Rs.10,000/- is
awarded for attender charges. For disability, the Tribunal has fixed
Rs.2000/- for each percent disability. Since the accident occurred on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
01.02.2013, the award per percentage of disability is fixed as Rs.3,000/- and
accordingly, the compensation is also enhanced. As a result, the
compensation payable to the appellant/claimant shall be as under:
Compensation under Various Award passed by this
Heads Court
Disability of 40% at Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-
per percentage (40X3000)
Loss of income Rs. 16,000/-
Pain & Sufferings and Mental Rs. 25,000/-
agony
Extra Nourishment Rs. 15,000/-
Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenity Rs. 15,000/-
Attender Charges Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 2,11,000 /-
13. Accordingly, the award of Rs.1,46,000/- is enhanced to
Rs.2,11,000/- with 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The respondent transport corporation is directed to deposit the
award amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw
the amount on appropriate application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No order as to costs.
07.01.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking
Index :Yes/No
vri
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Vri
CMA No.140 of 2017
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
